The Economist's brutal endorsement

1. 78

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   There are some stinging indictments of both Romney and Obama in this sort of backhanded endorsement from the British "The Economist."
   
   What are your favorite/least favorite (or in the Queen's English, I suppose I should say favourite) lines?
   
   http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 … -which-one

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Justsilvieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I love this part...
      
      Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         That says it, doesn't it?
         Only if you don't believe what he says...

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's worth pointing out that the Economist is known for being pretty right wing in England or as the Observer put it: "its writers rarely see a political or economic problem that cannot be solved by the trusted three-card trick of privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation."
      
      So the fact they are backing Obama is remarkable in itself.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I know! It's a puzzlement, isn't it?
         One would have expected no endorsement.
         There is a consistency emerging among some (many?) who have stated they would like to endorse Mr. Romney, but are patently unsure which Mr. Romney they would be putting their support behind. His Etch-a-sketchiness is not going unnoticed.
         
         
         Here is one that resonated (duh) with me:
         
         The other qualified achievement is health reform. Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal.

         replyreport
2. 48

   wavegirl22posted 11 years ago

   This one has to be my favorite for me it says it all
   
   "The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things."

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      True. But some of them are now espousing the same exact policies (e.g., foreign policy) as Obama.
      
      This one is another fave: it has a strong visual and message, too:
      
      Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Diane Woodsonposted 11 years ago

   I am for the Candidate who will not allow any more of our personal freedoms to be flushed down the toilet so it is Romney. I care not of his political and religious jargon, but who will we be in the best hands with. We must remember the Supreme Court rules most of what happens to us in the first place, the president is a figurehead. God will see us through, no matter what....

   replyreport
   1. 48

      wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      was that mentioned in the article, funny I must have missed that when I read through it.

      replyreport
4. 61

   Petra Vlahposted 11 years ago

   What I liked best is this paragraph
   
   "Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favor the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defense spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmers that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises.
   Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more"

   replyreport
5. 0

   SassySue1963posted 11 years ago

   @Petra You really should go read the President's proposed budget. It adds way more than $7 trillion. You claim Romney is living in a fantasy land with his tax cuts (we'll get to that) but what about the President? Can you name one thing, one iota of government spending he has pledged to cut? Other than gutting our military. He can't have it both ways either. You can't continue to spend, spend, spend and not raise taxes on Joe Schmoe. I'm glad you are so well off that a tax hike does not concern you. Most of us are not in that position. Raising taxes during a time of economic downturn is a recipe for disaster. The Clinton years that the Obama camp likes to cite as their "proof" is BS. We were not in an economic downturn plus, we did not have the trade deficit we do now. (a by product of the Clinton years).  Furthermore, Clinton cut corporate tax rates, and did not raise the tax rates on capital gains as well as the base tax rate, which is what this Administration is proposing. It will kill the economy.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why would the president, who steered our Titanic off from a header with the economic iceburg, suddenly propose sinking the economy he worked so hard and so tenaciously to save.
      Makes no sense.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         MM, you misunderstand me. I truly don't believe the President is an evil person. I just think he is in over his head on the economic front. That is what happened in the first debate. He had no idea how to respond because he is truly clueless as to how the economy works. Without his trusty teleprompter, he just does not know.
         I don't agree with everything the GOP has put forth. However, we must fix the economy. Unemployment just went UP last month. We didn't create enough jobs to maintain even the current sluggish economy, let alone grow the economy. And now, their only plan, is to do all the same things once again. There is nothing new. It will fail again. It's time to try a new direction.
         There are other reasons I hope this Administration is out of Washington next week, but the economy is a driving force.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      Petra Vlahposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sassy,
      
      The analysis belongs to "THE EXAMINER", so no reason to give me credit for the truth.
      At MM  invitation we were supposed to read the link and select the fragment we agree with most.  That is what I did!
      In case you missed that part and did not read the link, I will say it again: the analysis belongs to "THE EXAMINER"

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Ah I did miss that part Petra. I apologize.  lol@the Examiner however. Nope, totally unbiased source there. sigh.
         At any rate, I still hold that everyone here touting this biased report, should read both the President's proposed plan and Romney's, from their own sites and not some blogger's skewed perspective.
         Still, the questions remain...can you name one thing this Administration has pledged to cut that is going to help with that deficit?

         replyreport